--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello Thor
Thanks for this contribution, positive and constructive, and what we all should be doing. I also hope Graham doesn't bow out. Though I must say that what his "unique perspective" has mostly provided so far is a rather clear picture of why biodieselers tend to distrust "industry", and why some of us, including me, haven't got anywhere with trying to establish some common ground with industry, or at least with some sectors of it, though not others, and not for want of trying. Graham has done little here to allay people's suspicions, rather the opposite, as you can see. I'm sure his intentions are good, but that's about where it ends, his ideas of collaboration are clueless - laughable, as I said before, only it's not funny. He seems only to accomplish the opposite of his intentions. Currently there are two issues, both concerning him, and arriving from different directions: the first being the rumours of homebrewed BD causing widespread problems, presented as fact, and the second the unidentifiable and perhaps equally mythical party in Maine who allegedly got thumped for tax. The problem here is what I can only call industry arrogance - again, the fact that many (most?) in industry show no trace of this makes it that much less excusable. Graham (and others) have sought to protect and nurture biodiesel use and growth, all very laudable, and we do the same, at least as effectively in our area - but his ill-informed and prejudiced perception has been that what it needs protecting from is us. "The big fear of the biodiesel industry is that homebrewers are going to destroy the market." Hence all the warnings and apocryphal myths about the so-called "Perils of Home Brew", and the crashing failure to realize that, firstly, it's just not true, and second, that it has the opposite to the desired effect, it's bad news that travels far and doesn't die easily, as you point out, it gets distorted in the retelling, and makes people wary of biodiesel in general, from whatever source. This absolutely has to stop. IMO it does as much damage or more as we could ever do even if we did make crap fuel, which we don't. And it could almost be calculated to create a deep rift between our two sectors, though we both have the same aims and hopes. And that it has done. One (of several) reasons I hope Graham doesn't bow out, or whatever, is that he's in a very good position to try to repair some of this damage, if only he'll pause to consider the essential mutuality of any real collaborative effort. Obviously he wants to help, but he'll have to learn how, to reality of biofuelers will not change simply to fit his misconceptions about us, which in turn would do more harm than good anyway. Your points about the NBB and the EPA and their attitude to small producers, and the bureaucratic burden, are all very well-founded. There are signs they're beginning to change their ways, under pressure, but they need to do a lot more. As well as that, to get back to this "Perils of Home Brew" nonsense, it has rather a telling history. The original article was written by Frank Legge in Australia and published in a Biodiesel Association of Australia newsletter. They didn't send me that issue, though I subscribed, and their website is a mess - it lists the newsletters but the links are dead, as is the index of all articles in Biodiesel News, and their search engine returns no hits. So I was unable to find it there and didn't know Legge had written it. Legge's headline on the piece was quite different: he'd called it "Biodiesel Concerns", and he didn't at all approve of the new headline given it apparently by the NBB, which for quite a long time featured it on the front page of their website, without Legge's signature. In this form it appeared to have been written by Werner Koerbitz of the Austrian Biofuels Institute, which is perhaps the EU's equivalent of the NBB, in a way. It was associated with a longer piece by Koerbitz called "Why Standards are Important", with dire warnings against, yes, the Perils of Home Brew. "Obviously every country has to go through the phase of enthusiastic home-brewed biodiesel." We're just an unfortunate phase, the sooner we grow out of it and leave it to the Big Guys the better for everybody. (Though we do have our uses.) Both articles are still to be found at the NBB: Why Standards are Important http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/reportsdatabase/reports/gen/gen-322.pdf (Werner Korbitz's article slamming homebrewers) Perils of Home Brew http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/reportsdatabase/reports/gen/gen-321.pdf (Frank Legge's piece, unsigned) Okay, so, in the interests of promoting and protecting the biodiesel cause, of mutuality, collaboration and cooperation amongst all interested parties, let's all now highlight it on our websites what a useless bunch of wasters and ne'er-do-wells the NBB, the ABI and industry are - plenty of good material available, never mind if it's all true or not, if we say so often enough we'll help to make it true, especially as our websites are rather more powerful and popular than their's are. Okay? Quite. Do we do this? Quite the opposite - the NBB, the ABI and indeed World Energy and its major property, NOPEC (OceanAir Environmental Fuels), are all featured at Journey to Forever and most of them at most other biofuelers' sites. You get the point. We cannot collaborate with them so long as they insist on promoting these fallacies and treat us with such disdain. While they continue to do that, their talk of collaboration amounts to little more than an attempt to coopt us. Once they change their ways, they'll find us willing enough. Until then, we'll go our own way doing what we do, which does NOT include screwing up the market with bad fuel, but DOES include promoting biodiesel use and biofuels issues at least as effectively as they do. Sure, we're not so good at lobbying, and they're not nearly as good at publicity. Obviously the two should be complementary. That that's too often not the case is not our doing. Regarding quality testing and ASTM, what's happening now is that homebrewers gain experience and skill, they use the excellent methods now available to them, they adopt good practices, they use the quality checks many people have developed, and then they compare the results with commercial BD and find it matches, or better. In previous discussions with industry people over cooperation I've several times mentioned that we could use some help with quality testing, and got no response - this despite the concerns of these same people that our allegedly poor-quality fuel causes problems. You'd think they'd be keen to help us with this, wouldn't you? Nope. It's all narrow, one-way thinking - what can they get out of us, for as little as possible in return. One thing that would be most useful is a simple and affordable completion test, such as this: http://koal.cop.fi/leonardo/leonardo.htm Select "Analysis", "Miscellaneous", "Test kit for Biodiesel" Transesterification Degree, Flash Point, Remains of catalyst. Quite a few people have tried to track this down without success. Wouldn't that be a useful thing to put only a very few of those soy check-off dollars into? Do something constructive to help biodieselers with their quality for a change instead of just spreading counter-productive BS - the biodieselers would certainly take it up, they're most interested in quality, and it would be appreciated, build some bridges. By the way, your two examples of perceived problems with poor-quality biodiesel could well have stemmed from industry - see Todd's information on the ODOT experience. >I can point to one local gross incidence of severe down time >accrued by ODOT road crews running biodiesel manufactured to ASTM >spec. Seems that the vendor failed to inform ODOT of the superior >solvent capacities of biodiesel, or at least the information was >not relayed to outposts and no measures were taken. Debris ridden >fuel was pumped from outpost distribution tanks into field >distribution tanks and eventually into vehicles. Needless to say >there were numerous early and extended lunches between mid to >late summer. This wasn't bad biodiesel but bad information - we ALWAYS warn people about that, as Steve just did. Graham didn't respond to Todd on this earlier, I've asked him again, but no response yet. I wonder if this might not be where all the industry stuff about poor-quality homebrew biodiesel doing harm comes from - from industry's bad information, not homebrewers at all. Thanks again Thor. regards Keith >Graham, Keith, Tom, et. al. > >Graham, > >First, I sincerely hope that you do not bow out of >this discussion, as your participation does provide a >perspective that otherwise has been absent (in my >limited experience with this listserve). > >I also want to thank Keith for his wonderful post a >while back on the issue of soybean subsidies. > >Second, I think that there are some points to consider >in Graham's argument that all BDers should think >about. It's true that we haven't seen any particulars >wrt actual failings of the product of small biodiesel >producers, and that it is certainly unfair of the NBB >to summarily dismiss small producers on the basis of >their product quality. If the NBB were in fact really >interested in promoting small-scale production, it >would be suggesting ways to work with backyarders >rathe than simply suggesting that they bow out. > >I can give only a single anecdote from my own >extremely limited experience, that may or may not >count as it is coming second/third hand. The owner of >Fuelwerks, the place where I buy (World Energy) >biodiesel in Seattle, told me that he had a bad >experience with poor quality biodiesel from Portland, >and that is why he is sticking with World Energy. He >also claimed that Seattle Metro (bus service) had a >bad experience as well and consequently was now set >against biodiesel. > >Now I understand that the specifics in these stories >are missing, and so they don't weigh in as evidence >either for or against small producers. That is the >point that has been made over and over. > >A more significant point has been missed, however, >namely that regardless of the truth of a basis for >concern about the quality of backyard production, the >perception is equally important. > >What we are trying to do is to (re)introduce a (old) >new technology. The average driver, who knows nothing >of mechanics, fuel technology, and so on, is going to >be wary of sticking an unfamiliar substance in their >tank. Doubly and triply so for the commercial or >government fleet manager. We're talking about both >actual risk and the perception thereof. We all know >that bad news travels further and faster than good >news, and so just one actual or perceived bad >experience by someone putting biodiesel in their tank >(regardless of whether the biodiesel was actually at >fault or was simply blamed for something else that >went wrong) can set back our mutual agenda. > >We need a couple of things. First, better public >information and more outreach, such as the Clean >Cities Coalition did with their biodiesel symposium in >Seattle in Sept 2001. Second, more help / technical >assistance for small scale producers, in understanding >the regulations and tax implications. What we get >instead are generally warnings and threats. That >makes people, including me, just want to dig in our >heels and raise a middle finger. > >Here are some specific actions. >1) The NBB should make its Tier 1 testing results >available to any small producers who want them, >without having to submit to its fee structure that >discriminates against small producers OR it should >revise that fee structure to be fair to small >producers. NBB has, unfortunately, decided it easier >simply to wave away all backyard biodiesel, a strategy >for which Graham is now receiving a lot of flak. >[As a side note, I don't think the NBB has a leg to >stand on anyway, as these results were paid for with >public money--soybean checkoff funds--and therefore >cannot be appropriated for private benefit. But the >NBB evidently wants to make someone work to establish >that. There are FOIA requirements at play here.] > >2) EPA and the IRS should publish specific, clear, >unambiguous guidelines with regard to taxation and >certification requirements for biodiesel, in plain >English and not lawyer-speak. Having spent hours >wading through CFR and federal register announcements >about EPA regs for biodiesel and fuel testing, as well >as a lot of time on the phone with EPA, I have found >these rules abstruse and contradictory. Even Joe >Sopata at EPA told me that their own regs didn't jibe >with the law. Perhaps things have been clarified >recently, to the better. > >3) The fuel tax is fair and good, IMO. It is a user >fee (and therefore relatively progressive as a tax), >and goes to pay for roads and transportation projects. > But it is a lot of paperwork (at least in Washington >State) to go through: you have to register as a fuel >dealer, submit a whole bunch of forms, and so on, even >if you are just producing for your own use and not for >sale. I would like to see this process streamlined >and made more accessible. At present, it seems to >encourage avoidance rather than participation. > >4) We need to agree on some kind of quality >standards. Perhaps I am flogging a dead horse here, >but I haven't been able to read a consensus on this >forum about the feasibility of ASTM testing for small >producers. Standards make the world go round, and >without them, car manufacturers and engine >manufacturers won't agree to warranty BD use; then car >owners and fleet managers won't want to use it (that >perception of risk I talked about earlier). > >As a final note, although I am all for decentralized >production (especially using WVO), and would buy >locally made BD over World Energy if I had the option, >I have to say I am glad the NBB and World Energy >exist. Graham, even though I don't think your >business model is ideal (using subsidized, >conventional agriculture virgin oil, and shipping it >all over the country to be processed and sold) I do >appreciate that at this stage in the game you are >providing a consistent supply of product to places >that otherwise may not have it. > >I also think we are better off having a relatively >large organization to do lobbying on behalf of BD in >Congress, something I certainly couldn't do (very >effectively) if I were a small producer. Someone has >to take on the oil companies and do the outreach to >engine manufacturers, and the small producer community >is simply not well-enough organized at this point to >do so. Even if the NBB is interested principally in >feathering its own nest, at least ADM (an otherwise >thoroughly reprehensible company) et al are lobbying >for, for example, BD tax-exemptions. > >For NBB and small producers to work together >effectively, both sides will have to give something, >and both have something to offer. But each will have >to look beyond its self-interests to do so. At this >time, the NBB has greater political and economic >power, and is (perhaps?) better organized to act. >Small-scale producers may need to think about >organizing somehow (a national cooperative?) to focus >their voices. > >best to all, > >thor skov > > > > > > > > > >===== >Grants Manager >Stillaguamish Tribe Of Indians >3439 Stoluckquamish Lane >P.O. Box 277 >Arlington, WA 98223-0277 >(360) 652-7362 Ext 284 --- End forwarded message ---
